to consider private school even if...

[stella1w]

... it means no holidays, treats, nice clothes etc etc ever for the next 18 years?

My parents scrimped and saved to put me and my sister through private school even though they had a very low income.

I also have a low income but feel I should make all sacrifices necessary.. on the other hand, I don't think putting myself under severe financial stress during the recession would make me such a good parent either.

Feeling guilty either way..

Bright spot is local infant school just got "outstanding" ofsted report, though the juniors was only "satisfactory"

yup and I'ld add that it depends on the school AND CHILD, not sector. Although it sometimes seems that you need more cash for a good state school than than a private school these days, they aren't free are they? you have to be able to afford the overpriced shoeboxes on their doorsteps to get a good "free" education these days in a lot of places .

...but not all. That's another generalisation!

Always - I agree, it is often said on threads that private education only allows people to mix with a certain sector of society but it is often the case with some state schools.

I would love to see schools with all types of people so that any potential issues with something can be diluted. I would also like to see obvious streaming but for kids that struggle offer trades and apprenticeships that are equally as important.

I did look at the state system - I went to our local school which was classed as 'outstanding' and met the new head. She did not believe in streaming, the brighter children she believed should help the less able. At sports day you clapped the spectators as well as the winners of races, they were all equally as important (I got out of their as soon as I could!) surely she couldnt think that would set up children for life. What about the 11+ which is very popular around here. That is a strict pass or fail, an interview for a job is pass or fail. A driving test is pass or fail..... This school is now classed as Good, I am not surprised. I hope the head is run out of town!!

It does definitely seem that a good school is very often in a affluent area and you pay accordingly for the houses in that area.

I grew up on a council estate and went to Grammar school with girls from MUCH posher families than mine. I think the mix is important. I would hate to send my child to private school and certainly wouldnt deprive us all of holidays forever to pay for it. I think the opportunity to travel and learn about the world is important - if you can afford it - and is a better use of money. I love my dds school as it is truly cosmopolitan - lots of different natiionalities, cultural backgrounds and social mix. It reflects the city she lives in.

prob is that often if a school in a less desirable area becomes outstanding the area then becomes affluent by people buying into the school and pushing others out. one of the school in the less desirable part of town became very good, now practically every house on it's street has been bought up by people "buying in" and the less well off people in the area are now stuck with the other (less fantastic, to put it mildly) schools, not the good one that was improved FOR THEM!...........till the less fantastic ones get improved........then they wont be able to go there any more............free my @rse! at least private schools are honest about it I suppose

I see you have researched this long and hard and are harbouring no predujices whatsoever....

I think the few grammar sschools that are left relatively speaking are very popular, there is great demand for them. So why not bring them back? Allow everyone from every sector of society to pass the 11+if they are bright enough, dont make them the preserve of the smug middle classes.

Also great to see Grove taking the power back to the schools and the teachers, about time too. Hopefully we will get some discipline back in some failing schools

Sorry Gove not Grove!

you can be very bright and not pass the 11+.

also, children develop in different ways and at different stages. My DD was in a middle set for maths in year 5, for example. Now, about to go into year 10, she is in top set.

All the evidence shows that bright children from supportive families can do very well indeed at well run state schools.

However, for children who aren't so bright, or who lack personality, private school can be a very good thing: the individual attention and the sense of entitlement and confidence that goes with that can be very helpful when it comes to blagging their way into a job or a top university. The contacts you may make at private school won't hurt either.

So OP - are your children the sort who'll thrive in well run state school?

spud, that's a very good post...

I don't go with the whole 'on principle' thing. Surely all children choose the best school they can find/afford for their children? If you live in a crap catchment area and can afford private school, is it better to send them to some hellhole 'on principle'? I find that people with principles tend to be those who live in good catchment areas and can afford vastly expensive houses. Another generalisation.

Um 'parents'!

"Allow everyone from every sector of society to pass the 11+if they are bright enough"

Unfortunately they haven't managed to create a test that can spot potential in very bright but unsupported children.

On test day at our local, very popular grammar school, you see bus-loads of children from the local private schools being disgorged into the car-park. These kids have often had 11+ booster classes for a whole year as part of their normal curriculum, plus private tutoring, plus the benefit of being taught in classes of 15 for the previous few years.

Untutored kids from state schools can't usually compete with this, and are very underrepresented in the school's intake.

I would if the state options where I lived were really awful, I mean the kind where it would be difficult/impossible for a child to learn anything and stay out of trouble. Otherwise I don't think it's worth it, unless you can comfortably afford it. Not if it would mean you were unable to build/maintain good savings, for example. I went to an ordinary comprehensive and it was fine - if you're bright and work hard it doesn't matter too much whether you go to the 'top' schools IMO (though obviously a really bad school is a different matter).

You can always 'top up' their state education by paying for extra-curricular activities (music lessons etc), and even a tutor if needed, that's got to be cheaper than paying full private school fees.

Yes I agree Spud, but we managed it last time when there were many more grammar schools. I wonder what was different? There really were people going to grammar's from all parts of society.

We eat lots of pasta and run an old car, but still can't manage to rustle up 12K a year for school fees.

And we earn more than the national average.

Clearly my kids aren't worth it, hence I'm one of the smug middle classes with kids at grammar schools.

I wouldn't send my kids to public school based on my own family's experience. My brother went to public school, left with mediocre A-levels and a hash habit. Didn't go to university. I went to state school and have an oxbridge PhD. Not the academic outcome one would have necessarily expected. Public schools don't necessarily attract the best teachers, quite often they attract the weak ones who don't want to deal with 'difficult' kids.

I suppose now we have fewer grammar schools - only a handful in the entire country - so there's a lot more competition for a small number of places.

It did seem to be different back in those days. Certainly my parents both got into grammar school (and afterwards to good universities) without having private prep school education or tutoring at home from their parents - in fact my mum's parents could barely read or write themselves, so can't have been doing much to help other than general encouragement!

Maybe they were lucky or the exceptions though? I don't have personal experience of the system either now or then so it's difficult to say how much has changed.

Did you ever consider sending the kids to a state school, and employing a private tutor if and when necessary? It's a lot more flexible and tailored to your child. And if they're shy about it, their school friends never need know.

My mother is private tutor, and even with just one or two hours a week she usually helps the students up their predicted grades by a couple of bands. Of course, that relies on the student putting in the time and effort. But that's a given no matter what kind of school you attend.

My db bitterly regrets sticking to his principles when it came to educational choices for his dcs. Too late now as one has left school with very poor qualifications and the other has one more year to go. In both cases he chose the local single sex comprehensives. One is very poor academically and the other, whilst better academically, has poor sporting facilities. As a result neither child was able to fulfill their potential although at least the younger one is fulfilling sporting potential outside school. It would have been nice for him to be at a school with playing fields, which would have been available at the local private school along with a scholarship.

Ds is being privately educated mainly because of the wrap around care provision. However there are numerous incidental benefits including talent being noticed and developed at a young age which probably wouldn't have happened in a class size of 32.

I think you should judge each school individually and if it meets your DC's needs, not whether it is private/state/selective etc.

It all depends on individual circumstances. DS is exceptionally clever, sporty and musical. He is, however, in spite of getting 11 A* at GCSE and 1 A (in maths) not scientifically wired - he is linguistic and artistic. The local comp offers either French or Spanish as an MFL but not both and no other languages. The local grammar, Tiffin, when he was 7 or 8 was described in its Ofsted report as lacking in relation to languages and exceptionally strong for sciences. The state choices would not have suited him and because he is an "alpha" personality he would not have thrived. We were lucky, exceptionally lucky to have a choice.

DD is quieter, more compliant, not sporty, quite musical and probably in the top 20% rather than the top 2%. We sent her to an exceptional small comprehensive which used to be selective but the admissions procedures changed about five years ago. Academically the school is fantastic and she has been able to find her self esteem academically but socially it has been another matter altogether. Some of the children have been intimidating, disruptive and downright scary. The school has done little to deal with behaviour. We struggled to the end of year 8 and thankfully have the means to have transferred her and are hoping she will be able to learn in a quiet and calm environment and no longer be scared of what might happen at school.

We live in London and our experiences may be very different from other areas.

I also wouldn't want to be the child whose parents had sacrificed holidays/luxuries etc for 15 + years to afford school fees - way too much pressure.

A very good point. I would have hated my parents to make those sacrifices-what a weight to put on a DC.

The 'bring back grammar schools' always makes me laugh-said by people who assume their DC would get a place! The used to split families -I know twins (equal intelligence) where one passed and one failed and they certainly lots of cases where one sibling was grammar and one secondary modern. One of my best friends (one of the cleverest people I know) with parents with Oxbridge degrees was at secondary modern. She is now a headmistress.

I have yet to hear a single person say 'bring back the secondary moderns'!

The staterment that makes me really cross is 'and grammar schools helped the underprivileged get a step up' -knowing that if they need a tutor they will pay for one and snatch it from the DC with parents who haven't the money or the willingness to help. I also fail to understand why only the very intelligent need good schooling and a step up-I am pretty appalled that you can leave the rest as undeserving and 'they should keep to their place'!

Grammar schools may have been fair in my day-but not now thatparents invest so much in it-and it isn't a level playing field.